Download The role of allelopathy in host-virus relations

The role of allelopathy in hostvirus relations
G.Kazinczi1, J.Horvath2, A.Takacs1, I.Béres2,
R.Gáborjányi2, M.Nádasy2
1Office for Academy Research Groups
Attached to Universities and Other
Institutions, University of Veszprém,
Georgikon Faculty of Agricultural Sciences
2University of Veszprém, Georgikon Faculty of
Agricultural Sciences
Allelopathy (Molish 1937)
• A type of interference among higher
plants, where products of secondary
metabolism inhibit (less promote) the
development of neighbourhood plant
• Earlier only plant-plant, today plantmicroorganism interactions
• It is considered as a new alternative way
for biological control
Plant viruses make up about 15-30% out
of the whole plant diseases
Virus particles create close biologial unit
with the plant cell
Chemical plant protection against
viruses is unsuccesfull in vivo
Some natural substances are known to
inhibit replication and cell- to cell
movement of viruses and reduce virus
concentration
Mode of action
• It is not yet known exactly, but it
can be presumed that natural
inhibitors may modify special
receptor places on the plant cell
surface, therefore adhesion of virus
particles can not be happened
The aim of the study
• To examine the effect of allelopathic
weed extracts on some host-virus
relations
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
DONOR SPECIES
Cirsium arvense
Asclepias syriaca
Abutilon theophrasti
Convolvulus arvensis
Fresh plant parts were collected and grinding
Chelidonium majus
• Plant water extracts were made using 25 g
fress biomass/100 ml distilled water
• Extracts were used to spray daily test
plants from their 2-4 leaf stages until the
end of experiments
Host-virus relations (recipient
species)
Chenopodium amaranticolor-Alfalfa mosaic virus
Chenopodium quinoa-Sowbane mosaic virus
Cucumis sativus’Delicatesse’
-Zucchini yellow mosaic virus
Solanum nigrumObuda pepper virus
• Virus infection (DAS ELISA)
From the extinction values we can conclude
from the virus concentration; samples are
considered resistant to virus infection: if
extinction values do not exceed two times
those of the negative control
• Fresh weight
(five weeks after inoculations)
RESULTS
2,5
a
b
c
d
LSD5%
A
Extinction values
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
C.amaranticolorAMV
C.quinoa-SoMV
C.sativus-ZYMV
S.nigrum-ObPV
The effect of C. majus extracts on the virus concentration in test
plants (a, C. majus root extract; b, C. majus shoot extract; c, positive control; d,
negative control)
Slight, significant reduction in AMV concentration due to C. majus root extract
Enhanced virus concentration in S. nigrum
No difference in virus concentration in C. quinoa and C. sativus
40
35
30
g/plant
25
20
15
10
5
0
C.amaranticolor-AMV
C.quinoa-SoMV
C.sativus-ZYMV
S.nigrum-ObPV
The effect of C. majus extracts on the fresh weight of
test plants (a, C. majus root extract; b, C. majus shoot extract; c,
positive control; d, negative control)
1st column, C. majus root extract; 2nd, C. majus shoot extract; 3rd,
positive control; 4th, LSD5%)
0,8
Extinction values
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
LSD5%
The effect of water extract on the ObPV concentration in
S. nigrum
(1, A. syriaca root; 2, A. syriaca shoot; 3, C. arvense shoot; 4, C. arvensis
shoot; 5, A. theophrasti shoot; 6, positive control; 7, negative control)
18
16
14
g/plant
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LSD5%
The effect of water extracts on the fresh weight of
S. nigrum
1, A. syriaca root; 2, A. syriaca shoot; 3, C. arvense shoot; 4, C.
arvensis shoot; 5, A. theophrasti shoot; 6, positive control
Conclusions
• Sprayed plant extracts did not inhibit virus infection
• Allelopathic plant extracts have different effect on
the development and virus concentration in hosts
• One exception was in case of C. majus root extracts,
which reduced significantly not only AMV
concentration but also fresh weight of C.
amaranticolor
• It seems that there is no relation between
allelopathic inhibitory effect of weeds on the
development of test plants and virus inhibitory effect
in the hosts
Thank you for the attention!